Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
Because you asked me why I hadn't answered a question....That I didn't know was asked
as opposed to what.....answering questions that haven't been asked yet.
|
Dad, you read my posts thoroughly enough that you were quick to point out several flaws, which is fine. My point was, while you were dissecting every detail of my post looking for flaws, you might have also taken the time to answer the question I asked, which gets to the heart of the issue.
If you want to correct my grammar and punctuation, I have no problem with that. But how about you also take the time to answer the question I'm asking?
Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?
My position is this...
- people in the private sector are surviving with 401(k}s
- pensions are much more expensive than 401(k}s
- public employees are public servents, they are supposed to serve the public
- taxes are pretty high right now
Given all these things, it seems morally obvious to me that public employees should, finally, have to accept benefits that reflect what's available to the public they serve, and benefits that the taxpayers can reasonably afford.
Where am I wrong?